LAWS(JHAR)-2010-5-62

KRISHNA MOHAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On May 28, 2010
KRISHNA MOHAN PRASAD Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) From the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the Respondents today in I.A. Nos. 1160 of 2010 and 1819 of 2010, it appears that pursuant to the directions contained in the order of this Court dated-17.04.2010, the Respondents have assessed the amount of leave encashment, payable to the petitioner and have issued the necessary sanction for the release of such payments. It is also informed that for payment of the balance amount of G.P.F., a letter has been written to the Assistant Director, Provident Fund on 22.05.2010 to assess the balance amount and to pay the same to the petitioner without any further delay. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that in compliance with the aforesaid directions, it is expected that the balance of the G.P.F. amount together with the total amount of leave encashment would be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month. As regards the petitioner's claim for payment of Gratuity, learned counsel informs that the payments have been withheld by the Respondents- authorities and a decision in this regard was taken on 31.12.2006, although the copy of the order was not addressed to the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had retired from service on 30.06.2001, whereafter he was entitled to prompt payment of his retiral dues but the retiral dues have been withheld continuously for a period of nine months and it is now in the counter affidavit of the Respondents that an information has been revealed to the petitioner for the first time that the payment of gratuity of the petitioner has been withheld on the ground that the petitioner was convicted for some offence in the year 2006. Learned counsel further submits that there was no sufficient reason to retain or withhold the amount of gratuity, which was legitimately and genuinely payable to the petitioner after his retirement.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondents is not able to inform as to whether any information was given to the petitioner by way of any show-cause notice, declaring their intention to withhold the amount of gratuity, payable to him on the ground that some proceeding was pending against him.